is the future of america in texas?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And the majority of suburban environments in America suck.

Don't know why this is controversial. its simply reality.

It's an opinion/preference that most disagree with.

Dont know why you guys take this so personally.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

It's an opinion/preference that most disagree with.

Dont know why you guys take this so personally.

What's leading you to believe that I'm taking anything personally?

Celine Dion out-sold the Beastie Boys by a factor of 10!!

Celine Dion's music still sucks.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's great if you got a boat though.

Well.... kinda. The boats you can have on many of the canals in Cape Coral have to be pretty small because some of the bridges are really low. I've been on a little speedboat on the interior canals and to me it sucks... like driving through McMansion suburbs... just on the water.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Obadno

People will pay a premium and reduce their standard of living for very desirable areas but as definition desirable areas are a small percentage of the overall population and housing stock.

"Reducing one's standard of living" is 100% subjective.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Celine Dion's music still sucks.

Why in the Creator's good name would you utter such filth?!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

"Reducing one's standard of living" is 100% subjective.

That's 1,000% true.

My cousin and I both bought homes for our young families at roughly the same time ~6 years ago and at almost exactly the same price point.

I got an awesome duplex unit in a Chicago flat building in an even awesomer Chicago neighborhood.

He got a gigantic vinyl box on a half-acre lot in a former cornfield located out on the exurban fringe in the exact middle of nowhere.

If you asked each of us, we'd both tell you that the other one has a considerably lower "standard of living".



The only difference, of course, is that I'm right and he's wrong.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Obadno

As usual this forum is full of delusion and solipsism. You guys like urbanism. Most people don't. the average American literally wants a single-family suburban home. The majority of people in America live in suburban environments.

People will pay a premium and reduce their standard of living for very desirable areas but as definition desirable areas are a small percentage of the overall population and housing stock.

A few million people live in dense Manhattan. Cool a few hundred million don't.

Don't know why this is controversial. its simply reality.

Either way, at the end of the day the current suburban infrastructure and the butt ugly segregationally anti-social cheap ugly cookie cutter development is not financially or environmentally sustainable. It's placing the USA (and other similar countries) in a pickle for the future. The problem isn't the suburbs, but, the kind of suburban development that has taken place.

Can you at least admit that?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by pj3000

"Reducing one's standard of living" is 100% subjective.

I'm always amazed when people correlate relative square footage with relative standard of living. It's bizarre. Beyond a minimum for basic livability, how do more rooms give you higher standard of living, or quality of life?

We're a household of three, in a two bedroom. Granted, we're lucky and we have a spacious unit in a nice building/location. Sizewise it's basically an urban three bedroom equivalent. But I'm confused how we would live better in a five bedroom, and better still in a ten bedroom.

Even if money were no object, what are you doing beyond say 5,000 sq. ft.?

[mhays]

True, nearby amenities are important too. For many people, restaurants, gyms, hotels, parks, etc., can take the place of having huge personal space. That's part of why young adults and empty-nesters in particular often live in urban cores even if the housing costs are high.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm always amazed when people correlate relative square footage with relative standard of living. It's bizarre. Beyond a minimum for basic livability, how do more rooms give you higher standard of living, or quality of life?

We're a household of three, in a two bedroom. Granted, we're lucky and we have a spacious unit in a nice building/location. Sizewise it's basically an urban three bedroom equivalent. But I'm confused how we would live better in a five bedroom, and better still in a ten bedroom.

Even if money were no object, what are you doing beyond say 5,000 sq. ft.?

Doesn't it depend on whether you live in the city versus suburbs? I'm guessing that you live in the city in a larger condo. Someone said in either this discussion or another that in the US, most residential in the semi-urban part of the city will build mostly 2 bedrooms or less, and if they build three bedrooms or more, the prices skyrocket as do any SFH on a city lot. But in the suburbs, many prospective buyers are not going to consider anything less than 3 bedrooms as they would be expecting more space in the suburbs, even if it is an expensive suburb.

[pj3000]

Traffic jam in Aisle 7!




Rather ironic that they're in the Sporting Goods section...

[MolsonExport]

Lawns on suburban tracts in the desert should be mandatory!
-Obadno

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Beyond a minimum for basic livability, how do more rooms give you higher standard of living, or quality of life?

But I'm confused how we would live better in a five bedroom, and better still in a ten bedroom.

This is the USA and bigger is better!

Other people think you're worth more money, so you're quality of life must be higher.

[Crawford]

To me, really huge living spaces make sense for really huge families, and for really rich people who entertain (30-person dinner parties, fundraising events and the like).

Besides that, once everyone has a bedroom, and in McMansion sprawl maybe there's some combo of a man cave, an exercise room and a place for kids to raise hell, but beyond that, I don't get it.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Lawns on suburban tracts in the desert should be mandatory!
-Obadno

They should it would lower the urban heat island effect in desert cities immensely.

Warter usage in desert states is 75% agriculture. your lawn is not a water hog and helps cool the city.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

What's leading you to believe that I'm taking anything personally?

Celine Dion's music still sucks.

Again that is just your personal preference. A lot of people love Celine Dion.

As I said, Solipsism. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone has the same preferences and experiences as you.

that is a horrifying concept to the people on this forum.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

To me, really huge living spaces make sense for really huge families, and for really rich people who entertain (30-person dinner parties, fundraising events and the like).

Besides that, once everyone has a bedroom, and in McMansion sprawl maybe there's some combo of a man cave, an exercise room and a place for kids to raise hell, but beyond that, I don't get it.

Yeah, I don't get why some people just need to have the big house. My buddy and his wife have a 5bdrm 4,200 sqft house that was built in 2009. Not a cheap McMansion, but a "custom home".

He has two kids from a previous marriage, but for half of the time, it's only the he and his wife. And the space is way more than adequate for when the two kids are there... there's 2 extra bedrooms with en suite bathrooms... that it seems like no one ever enters! The house offers no feeling of warmth, just volume... not really a cool or fun scene to hang out in. And it's not like they have a big piece of property or anything... the house next door is only about 20 feet away.

They almost never entertain... and if they do, it's usually just me and my wife. They live 45 minutes south of Pittsburgh... where there's nothing but strip mall plazas... I don't get it at all.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Again that is just your personal preference. A lot of people love Celine Dion.

As I said, Solipsism. Not everyone thinks like you, not everyone has the same preferences and experiences as you.

that is a horrifying concept to the people on this forum.

Th thoughts, preferences, and experiences of people who favor far-flung vinyl exurbia in places like Texas and the such are easily dismissed, since these folk are seriously impaired.

[edale]

I agree that more house doesn't really give you much of a quality of life boost, but I definitely get the desire for more outdoor space, especially if you're raising children. I grew up in a house with a big front yard and a decent sized back yard, and it was pretty idyllic. I played outside almost every day that it wasn't raining or super cold, rode my bike everywhere, played in the woods and creek down the street...and could still walk or bike to the neighborhood rec center and pool (where I worked as a lifeguard as a teen), a handful of businesses, etc.

I'm a big urbanist, but I think my childhood would have been considerably worse if I didn't have all that outdoor space to explore and play around in. At the same time, being able to walk and bike to things was also important, and I would have felt trapped if I was never able to leave the subdivision or whatever because it's surrounded by stroads. A healthy balance, like in all things, is probably ideal.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Obadno

They should it would lower the urban heat island effect in desert cities immensely.

Warter usage in desert states is 75% agriculture. your lawn is not a water hog and helps cool the city.

If you want a lush green lawn, you probably shouldn't live in the desert and it impacts the local ecosystem. I never understood people from Ohio who move to phoenix and insist on bringing Ohio with them. Yes, a lawn is a total water hog. I wish our HOA would let us grow native plants in our lawn rather than thirsty St. Augustine grass.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The Dallas and Houston MSAs are already slowing down faster than LA at comparable decades.

whats interesting about this is that LA might not be a good comparison for the individual texas cities.

LA is unique in that it totally dominated California (and the west coast in general) during the time of greatest population growth there. But Texas as a region is a bit more polycentric.. it doesnt really have a Los Angeles.

I think a better way to look at it is to compare the "Texas Triangle" as a whole to Southern California, as a whole.

I couldnt find demographic data on the "texas triangle" as such so ill just show Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin data. All my numbers for Texas Triangle will be about 2 million short as iim missing Waco, College Station, Kileen, Temple, New Braunfels, etc


Southern California:


"Texas Triangle" Total 1980-2020:
1980: 7,488,800
1990: 9,271,023
2000: 12,181,336
2010: 16,151,006
2020: 19,601,141

Southern California Total 1950-2020:
1950: 5,931,975
1960: 9,398,722
1970: 12,103,559
1980: 14,308,742
1990: 18,269,095
2000: 20,637,512
2010: 22,680,010
2020: 23,762,904

Also, "comparable decades" may be up for debate. Texas appears to be 30 years behind california in its growth cycle, i.e. 1950 CA = 1980 TX

Here are the numbers side by side:
SOCAL........................TEX
1950: 5,931,975..........1980: 7,488,800
1960: 9,398,722..........1990: 9,271,023
1970: 12,103,559........2000: 12,181,336
1980: 14,308,742........2010: 16,151,006
1990: 18,269,095........2020: 19,601,141
2000: 20,637,512........2030: ?
2010: 22,680,010........2040: ?
2020: 23,762,904........2050: ?